Thanks ButcherAll those changes in addition to all the Updates earlier this morning Wow. Well, at least they are busy trying but I fear that the reputation may be tarnished. I don't understand, with so many changes they needed, a lot of these weren't discovered in Alpha and Beta testing. Makes one think they didn't have that and the fact that they weren't answering any questions before release and no review copies given out early that they knew this might happen. At any rate maybe this will get some more players to give the game a try.

_________________________
"Don't Hate Me Because I Am Beautiful...There Are Many Other Reasons!"

Unfortunately it's very common these days, they just release the game and let us find the bugs and glitches. I mean how much testing did they do that they have to fix 50 bugs and glitches within the very first days after release. The worst thing is Day 1 patches. Seriously?

Day 1 patches is like saying to the buyers "We didn't test our game properly or thoroughly, we released it as it was untested and probably unfinished, and we started testing for bugs after the game went gold and for printing. Here is a Day 1 patch with all the bug fixes we couldn't be bothered to test and find before release".

_________________________
"Cannot The Kingdom Of Salvation Take Me Home?"

You bring up a good point Butcher and this theory comes to mind. Since "Going Gold" is no longer a relevant term because Publishers no longer put PC games on Disk. Going Gold meant that the Publisher is finally printing a 'polished' game to disk that has been thoroughly tested so they can release the finished game to the public, let the profits roll in and be done with it and move on to the next project. With most all Adventure games now being released in download format only (even the disks are downloads) where patching is easily done maybe releasing games before the polish will become the norm from now on where the Developer no longer has to be proactive in searching for bugs and glitches but reactive upon early release. Maybe even Steam encourages this type of player Beta testing to the Developers. This was evident with Barrow Hill: The Dark Path to a lesser extent and now Syberia 3 which went over the top. Maybe it is cheaper and less time consuming for a developer to get the game out there fast and just have a team in place on release day to start looking at comments and addressing them then. Mind you, I am in no way trying to make excuses for the Developers/Publishers nor do I like this method but maybe there is some truth to some of this. If this theory is the case then I would rather they advertise as such because all the negative feedback that both Barrow Hill: The Dark Path and Syberia 3 get right out of the gate has to cut into the profits.

Disclaimer:Just my thoughts and is only based in my head and not based on any proof or that I even have a brain

BTW: the last game Update/Patches has worked perfectly and I am well on my way. 25 plus hours in and I am faced with the first very challenging puzzle.

_________________________
"Don't Hate Me Because I Am Beautiful...There Are Many Other Reasons!"

If you are right, and it seems feasible, then it’s very close to being a customer relationship disaster. Why, put a product on the open market when it is known to the developers that it is not of merchantable quality. We are not asking for the moon, in fact Gamebomers bends over backwards to support the developers but it seems now, when we have to deal with the Steam monopoly for Adventure games, we have little choice but to except what we are given.

The German developers, Daedalic Entertainment and King Art Games can and do present their games ready to play and don’t weld on features in an effort to persuade a different audience to buy them. That’s been done before and dropped, because it’s never worked.

When a developer puts a game on the market when knowing it has a design fault, then personally I have no sympathy for them.

Cari; I, indeed most of us, would agree, but this is not a normal situation. They were dealing with a long sought after game based on two much loved previous games. They had a huge marketing edge anyway. As long as the patch or patches fix the problems, most of us can live with the initial inconvenience. We probably should be more irritated than we are, but if the game finally runs well and plays smoothly, there will be cries for "Syberia 4" on this site in about six months. Maybe downloaded games and and post-purchase repairs have become the norm. Maybe that's OK.

_________________________
If all the people were heroes, there would be no one to watch the parades.

Straying from this game, but agreeing with the release of games and letting the players beta test them, Barrow Hill, The Dark Path comes to mind. I don't mind alpha or beta testing games - I've recently spent a lot of time doing that with two new games - but I DON'T like having paid full price for the game just to be a beta tester.

_________________________
In my PC corner for the winter, gaming, knitting and reading.

Question to GreyFuss if you don't mind. Since it seems you have been playing the game longer than other members, I read from another forum that you have to be connected to the Internet while playing the game, this person said that if you are dis-connected from the Internet for a long time and tried to play the game it would not work. Q. Is this true? Have you tried playing the game for a long period of time while your Internet is off?Or is this person just trying to add more bad publicity to S3.

I also forgot to ask and this question is for all: I also read from the Steam Forum that in the recently released patch they removed the Denovo? Patch, is this true? Or this just a person's wishful thinking.